Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!
From: John Larkin (jjlarkin_at_highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com)
Date: 08/11/04
- Next message: Ian St. John: "Re: World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008"
- Previous message: Duane C. Johnson: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Next in thread: Duane C. Johnson: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:54:01 -0700
On 10 Aug 2004 15:29:16 -0700, thoovler@excite.com (Igor) wrote:
>abdul.ahad@ntlworld.com (AA Institute) wrote in message news:<adbf5bc1.0408100424.7bbd901d@posting.google.com>...
>> I don't know much about this topic so I'm not going to pretend...
>> Generally, during detonation of an atom bomb, mass is converted into
>> energy in accordance with the famous equation of E=MC^2 and I believe
>> the highest efficiency of conversion of mass into energy in such a
>> reaction has been observed to be less than 10% (is it 8%?). I have 2
>> questions in relation to this:-
>>
>> 1. Is there an example of a reverse, 'energy' back into 'mass' type
>> reaction in every day life and what is the highest efficiency (%)
>> observed in that kind of a reaction? Are there many more examples of
>> energy back into mass?
>>
>
>
>There is really no physical conversion of matter to energy or vice
>versa. The equation simply states that mass and energy are the same
>thing. They have different units, hence the mathematical conversion
>factor of c^2. In nuclear fission, the energy that is liberated is a
>portion of the binding energy that holds the nucleus together. Thus,
>the nucleus splits, other elements are formed, and energy is available
>for doing work.
>
>
>
>> 2. What is the % efficiency of mass into energy conversion inside a
>> typical living cell? I know we are talking here an entirely different
>> ball game to the nuclear fission inside an atom bomb, but I see bumble
>> bees buzzing around with tons of energy... having consumed only a few
>> milligrams of pollen from a flower in my garden. So they must have a
>> very high mass ==> energy conversion efficiency. Is this something
>> that has been measured in a few test cases and is there any research
>> papers accessible on the net?
>>
>
>
>What we are talking about here are chemical processes, which are much
>much less energetic than nuclear processes. No mystery here. Bees
>tend to powered by sugars (the nectar that they imbibe at the flowers
>they visit), which tend to be a large source of chemical energy. Same
>is true of hummingbirds. In fact, I've heard it said that
>hummingbirds must injest a certain high level of sugars each day just
>to keep their wings beating that rapidly. Interesting stuff, but no
>mass to energy conversion is necessary.
Any exothermic chemical or nuclear reaction converts mass to energy.
The law of conservation of energy forces it to be so. Or, to put it
another way, potential energy has mass. Even a wound-up spring weighs
more than a relaxed one, and a charged battery is heavier than a
discharged one. Just ask Harry.
John
- Next message: Ian St. John: "Re: World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008"
- Previous message: Duane C. Johnson: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Next in thread: Duane C. Johnson: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
